The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[demonchilde]

Because that's my job, as far as my children are concerned.
It's not the lessons in question (remember, just my opinion), it's whose job it should be to teach it.
There are so many things taught in schools today that should be covered already in the home. I consider this an issue that too many things are done FOR the parents today, that should be their human right and responsibility to be done themselves

 

[Spurgy 777]

Surely it's unfair on kids with not so good parents for schools not to give any sex education other than teaching them about reproduction. Yes you may be fine giving your kids proper sex education, but what about the kids from families who think birth control is a bad thing and discourage it, where will they get their proper sex education from? It's a little selfish IMO to say, well I can teach my kids this fine, so no ones kids should be taught it in school. And an opt-out system wouldn't work either because if the not so good parents disagree with what's being taught, they could easily opt-out and it would defeat the whole purpose of sex education lessons. Now granted schools shouldn't be doing the parents jobs for them, but I think with important issues the schools should give some basic lessons for things like sex education.

 

[Famine]

Nevertheless, this doesn't really cover why you think schools should not say homosexuality is natural when it is, nor cover sexual response to stimuli in reproduction lessons.

Because that's my job, as far as my children are concerned.

It's not the lessons in question (remember, just my opinion), it's whose job it should be to teach it.

Sex education is a parent's job anyway. I figure that they at least have the practical experience...

If you're against the school teaching them that homosexuality is natural as part of biology lessons (reproduction, as a topic, goes so much further than just sex-ed), does that mean you consider it your job to not teach them that it's natural?

There are so many things taught in schools today that should be covered already in the home. I consider this an issue that too many things are done FOR the parents today, that should be their human right and responsibility to be done themselves

It is indeed your right and responsibility to ensure your children are educated. Best way to do that to your standard is not to send them to school - then you have complete control over what is taught to them within an education framework.

You may not have the time and money to do this, so a private school is the best second option - if they teach things you don't wish taught (which you can determine by their published syllabus - your right and responsibility to check it) you can have your kids withdrawn from specific lessons - your money talks.

 

[Leicht]

 

[demonchilde]

I personally, was forced into 5 years of private Catholic school (uniforms and all), so if you really want to talk oppression, lol . . . .
I got a good glimpse of the extreme other side, where everything's Vatican opinion or nothing. I do openly admit that that extreme (gay/condom/abortion/sex-before-marriage/etc) being completely one-sided was very wrong. I think if it's going to be touched on at all, it should be fact only, and the decision of if anything is right or wrong morally should be left to the student and parents.
I teach my kids different then I was taught by my parents. Not everything, but on some issues.
BUT I know exactly where my parents and that generation came from and hold their opinions dear.
I expect, my kids will do the same, they won't agree with everything I taught them, and they will teach slightly different, but their opinions will be made with all information possible on each subject as well as my views and the explanation on how I came to the conclusion's I did.

 

[niky]

Don't quite recall if it's been mentioned in this thread... it probably was, years ago... but this is worth watching for anyone who thinks sexuality is all black and white.

Me, My Sex and I (BBC Documentary)

If you think a person should identify with their physical gender and ONLY their physical gender, try telling a person with mismatched sex organs which gender they should be....

I once put together a slideshow for my grandfather (a gynecologist before he became a hospital owner) focusing on hermaphroditic disorders. But aside from the more obvious physical sexual abnormalities, one has to consider that very subtle physiological and hormonal differences can make even physically "normal" people identify with the opposite gender.

 

[hogger129]

I don't care if people are gay, but it is not normal and it should not be viewed or taught as being normal.

 

[Imari]

I don't care if people are gay, but it is not normal and it should not be viewed or taught as being normal.

Lol. It's OK to be gay, but you should still be ostracised? Nice.

 

[STI9]

Lol. It's OK to be gay, but you should still be ostracised? Nice.

You can't expect everyone to be OK with homosexuality, it makes some people uncomfortable and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is with people who take an extreme stance blast hatred onto gay people which is unfair.

 

[Joel]

You can't expect everyone to be OK with homosexuality, it makes some people uncomfortable and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is with people who take an extreme stance blast hatred onto gay people which is unfair.

You can't expect everyone to be OK with black people, they make some people uncomfortable and there is nothing wrong with that.

See how that works?

 

[Imari]

You can't expect everyone to be OK with homosexuality, it makes some people uncomfortable and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem is with people who take an extreme stance blast hatred onto gay people which is unfair.

Fair enough. I do understand that some people feel weird about gays, and that's their thing. This stuff happens. I feel weird about mushrooms. It's not the end of the world.

I do find it funny however when someone says that they're OK with gays, as long as everyone is clear that gays are not normal.

That's like pretty much any sentence that starts with "I'm not racist, but...".

If you're gonna be racist, just be racist. If you're gonna be a homophobe, just be a homophobe. You'll probably cop all sorts of flak for it, especially here, but at least it's honest.

 

[demonchilde]

Anti-anything is wrong generally.
Ex; gay, black, white, vegan, nazi, Jewish, Muslim, Satanism, mexican, communist, politician, ect.ect.)

But remember, telling someone they aren't allowed to personally be agienst whatever they choose is anti-freedom. So by me saying the first sentence in this post, I state that as a personal fact, not a human 'rule'.
I would defend a Nazi's right to personal belief, even though I think he's morally a d***head.

 

[Famine]

I don't care if people are gay, but it is not normal and it should not be viewed or taught as being normal.

What is "normal" anyway?

Being homosexual is pretty normal to homosexuals...

 

[Danny]

Are you suggesting that people aren't a homogeneous mass?

 

[browneyedman]

And yet just 6 months ago you were on GTPlanet posting in the "Do You Believe In God?" thread.

I guess times don't change all that much.

You are right. I meant I hadn't been here in 7 months not 17... I thought the last time I was on was Forza planet and not GT Planet. So you are right about that.

 

[browneyedman]

* This particular thread started over ten years ago, although to be fair, people also complained about those GT-related things a decade ago. We're a pretty diverse forum...and therefore very little is off-limits for discussion, if done so fairly.

[/off-topic]

Wow...10 years

 

[BobK]

Lol. It's OK to be gay, but you should still be ostracised? Nice.

That's a pretty big leap you made there, taking "not normal" to mean "should be ostracized". hogger129 was absolutely correct, it's not normal in the general population. That does not imply there's something wrong with it (although it's possible this is the point where hogger129's and my opinions differ). For instance, obsession with a video game is "not normal" in the general population, but if you took a vote here I think the result would be that it's perfectly acceptable.

 

[niky]

Who decides what is "normal", then?

-

Homo sapiens are not heterogenously heterosexual.

Homosexual/heterosexual gender identity is not a binary choice. There are different levels, and even people who identify as heterosexual can have homosexual inclinations. Which is why some people can be "cured" of homosexuality, or persuaded to lie to themselves and pretend they don't have the feelings they so obviously do have.

To say homosexuality is not "normal" is like saying being taller than average is not "normal" or having smaller than average feet is not "normal"... or that having anything other than 2.5 kids in your family is not "normal."

 

[Imari]

That's a pretty big leap you made there, taking "not normal" to mean "should be ostracized". hogger129 was absolutely correct, it's not normal in the general population. That does not imply there's something wrong with it (although it's possible this is the point where hogger129's and my opinions differ). For instance, obsession with a video game is "not normal" in the general population, but if you took a vote here I think the result would be that it's perfectly acceptable.

Are you happy for it to be taught in schools that enjoying video games is not normal?

I think there's a difference between the phrases "not normal" and "not true of the majority".

Enjoying video games is completely normal. Being obsessed (and that's an important word you chose there) with anything is certainly not normal, more or less by definition. I don't think people here find it particularly acceptable, which is why the stereotype of the fat neckbeard who lives in his mother's basement is so reviled.

I'm choosing to believe that you misspoke and meant people who take video games as a serious hobby, which is no different to people who take sailing or cycling or hiking as serious hobbies, and none of which are considered abnormal. Obsessing about any of those things is.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

 

[BobK]

I guess that's where we differ then, because I do consider "not normal" and "not true of the majority" to be largely equivalent. And I by no means consider "not normal" to be a value judgement. Perhaps that's the problem, because it seems many people do.

 

[Imari]

I guess that's where we differ then, because I do consider "not normal" and "not true of the majority" to be largely equivalent. And I by no means consider "not normal" to be a value judgement. Perhaps that's the problem, because it seems many people do.

Social norms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_(social)

Basically, anything that is considered acceptable by the society, culture or group to which the individual belongs.

If you're using the word normal to mean "average", then certainly. But when describing social behaviours it has a specific meaning. "Not normal" therefore means something that is unaccepted by the society at large.

I agree with your assessment that (probably) the vast majority of the population do not consume video games in any serious way. I do not agree that it's a socially unacceptable behaviour, which to some extent it was not so many years ago.

Likewise, I would agree that there isn't a majority of homosexuals. But I think that being a homosexual should not be socially unacceptable.

 

[hogger129]

Lol. It's OK to be gay, but you should still be ostracised? Nice.

No, being gay is not okay. I accept the sinner, not the sin.

God decided what was normal a long time ago.


Let the angry flame posts begin.

 

[Famine]

More the "rolling eyes, here we go again with the creative interpretation of the Bible" posts.

 

[hogger129]

More the "rolling eyes, here we go again with the creative interpretation of the Bible" posts.

It's not just God that says it's wrong; logic says it's wrong too. There's no way one can possibly pro-create with homosexuality.

 

[Dennisch]

So sex is purely for creating babies?

We should get a point and laugh smiley.

 

[Famine]

It's not just God that says it's wrong

Moreover it's not even God that says it's wrong.

logic says it's wrong too. There's no way one can possibly pro-create with homosexuality.

There's also no possible way to procreate if you're sterile, post menopausal, fornicating in a manner other than vaginal (it's not just some gay men who like the bottom and mouth) or are actively taking steps against procreation (contraception).

Which means two things. If you've ever enjoyed an act of carnality that could not end in a future generation, you're a sinner in your own version of God's eyes and that you have no idea what "logic" is.

 

[hogger129]

It's sort of ironic isn't it? You people expect me to be tolerant, yet you are not tolerant at all.

 

[Famine]

I also see that you have no idea what "tolerant" means.

 

[Dennisch]

I also see that you have no idea what "tolerant" means.

Hogger and SCJ went to the same school, or so it seems.

 

[Imari]

It's sort of ironic isn't it? You people expect me to be tolerant, yet you are not tolerant at all.

Not really ironic. You're intolerant of homosexuality, I'm intolerant of ignorance. We all have our own little foibles.

You can be intolerant of whatever you like, but you might want to be careful about claiming that your intolerance is founded on rational principles rather than bigotry. It's frankly pretty easy to tear that argument apart, as Famine has demonstrated.